the galah

southland had its first 2 year old race a couple of weeks ago and did get 9 starters. But if you had a look at that race,2/3rds of them were so green that not one canterbury trainer would have lined up any of them in a canterbury race. it was as much luck as anything that someone didn't hit the deck on the first bend in that race. all you had to do was look at the videos of the trial performances of the southland horses and you would have thought ,this race is going to be very messy.And so it proved. The canterbury horse who won by 8 lengths, could have won by 20 lengths. HRNZ thinks putting on a group 3 race worth $37,500 for 2 year olds who are as green as grass is a great idea. last year i referred to the leading points scorer in the canterbury country cups races. Tanzania was the leading points scorer,ran in nearly every country cup and ran many good placings,yet what he earnt in 1 year of running his guts out wasn't much more than what that 2 year old race winner in southland earnt in 1 start ,.against a field of horses who 3/4 wouldn't run a place in a weak manawatu maiden. thats the way hrnz,the media and the big players want it. thats why p cook suggested earlier there needed to be a break down of exactly who had bred mares this year, Because going by what hrnz and b reid said and more specifically what they didn't,there seems a strong chance the breeders who breed one or 2 may have declined again.

i was reading an interesting article on stuff written by loyd burr about the greyhound industry last month. that may interest some if they haven't already read it. it is going to be very,very sad in so many ways,wether people agree with the decison to stop racing or not. They only have 4 months left to race. sounds like the government will still need to heavily subsidise the greyhounds and their people for caring for thier dogs. But so they should.Calls for other compensation does sound reasonable,but may come to nothing. i guess whatever happens it would be depressing seeing your lifes work taken away from you.

that seems very unlikely given the way HRNZ are running things. for that to happen there would have to be an admission from hrnz that they are over spending and every press release,public comments that come from them tells everyone how well the industry is going and how much confidence they have in their policies to maintain stake levels. so even a suggestion coming from hrnz that there may be a need for future stake cuts would be an admission that they have been painting a false picture of the state of the industry and be an admission they aren't doing a good job. So realistically,we can tell from the rhetoric they use that they are never going to admit that.They've really painted themselves into a corner as far as the messaging about the industry. Thats why,if the wheels do fall off we will see it happen on a scale far bigger than it ever needed to be. we've both predicted the first sign things are turning for the worse will be when those making the decisions at hrnz start abandoning ship and move on to greener pastures. Maybe 18 months- 2 years time.

I just watched a fella called brad reid on the box seat trumpeting how great it was that the number of mares bred was up by 99. mr reid went on to say how great a job HRNZ had done in stopping the decline. Now after watching mr reid i came to the conclusion hes just another well meaning spin artist as well. You see, mr reid said its not rocket science to work out hrnz needed to invest heavily in subsidising breeders through bonuses,cedits earned by fllies and mares who win races,credits per foal for bigger breeders,etc.It sound like its 2-3 million annually. So Reid said its not rocket science the industry had to artificially introduce those subsidies to stabalise numbers. so all mr reids done is positively spin the very negative underlying aspect,which is obvious,he after all said it,that numbers would have declined without the subsidies .. So all mr reid's done is positively spin the underlying very negative aspect,whcih to it. to be honest,i personally just don't think they realise just what they say sometimes, because they are so caught up in trying to make out what a good job hrnze doing. as to subsidies. well theres 2 things about that. Its money being diverted from somewhere,hrnz can only spend it once and how long are subsidies sustainable for. maybe mr reid is too young but perhaps he should have a look back in history to past examples of what happens when you remove subsidies. In the mid 80's all hell broke loose when rogernomics removed the lamb subsidies applied during the muldoon era. Now,i'm not comparing an industy with 70 million sheep at the time to an industry with 1600 horses,but it was still a case study of the consequences of what happens when you artifically manipulate something and ignore relaities. the point i keep making is,if hrnz was truly doing a good job,there would be no need for any subsidies. Subsidies are just a way of putting off dealing with realities and the longer you put it off,the worse the inpact becomes.

No ones ever said anything negative about the concept of slot races. the arguments are always about how they are funded. The cambridge club was very poorly run by all reports and part of their huge debt was from running the slot races. Thats why HRNZ stepped in and said,the nz harness industry can take the financial hit instead of cambridge. if you can give a reason why cambridge thought it was ok to add to their huge debt by running slot races,we would be happy to hear it. You will find in 2 or 3 years time,hrnz announcing say a $1000 stake cut for lower grade horses at tracks like cambridge and that will be linked to the likes of the losses generated by overspending on the likes of slot races.So,if slots are funded by hrnz,its the grass roots who will end up paying the price.

so your saying our opinions were "hunches". a hunch meaning "a guess based on intuition rather than fact". i agree with that. then you go on to say we "may very well be correct". i agree with that. But then you lose me when you add words which infer anyone who makes predictions which turn out to be true,lack credibility.That makes no sense

So what myself and brodie have been saying long ,long before the report was available for reading,turns out to be true. The report confirms what we've been saying. prepping for a job at hrnz are you. It was an irrelevant comparison and you would have known it when you came up with it.

Your interpretation of what we've been saying is not accurate. What we've clearly been saying is hrnz's expenditure is not sustainable and that they will be eating into their cash reserves which will eventually leave them short when it comes to having funds for future stake levels.. the books you quoted show a drop of $3 million in just 1 year. and we've been saying that the guaranteed minimum return from wagering runs out in a couple of years .So theres a possibilty that their income from that source could be reduced.If it is,then add that to the $3m shortfall per year. Then ,you seem to have ignored Mr steeles on record statements about HRNZ policy as far as supporting Auckland harness racing. Hes said hrnz will help the atc set up a training establishment when they have sold the pukekohe training centre. Thats in the $10's of millions,,seemingly close to $20. Anyone can tell thats never going to happen. Any fool should be able to see if it did happen the whole of nz harness racing is screwed. so you take off the 20m hrnz investment in auckland from the $32m and then you take off the current $3m a year they are ovberspending and within 4 years your cash reserves are gone. then you factor in the $13.4m they got from forbury supposedly not being able to be used for auckland anyway,so that would mean if they proceeded with the auckland training centre they may have to borrow money to do that.Of course that won't happen,it will instead be big stake cuts. thats all assuming they were to keep stake levels at their current rates. Now obviously thats a picture that is over simplified given the many variables,but its still accurate enough to paint a picture of where things are headed if HRNZ stick to what they have said they will do. One day,someone at hrnz will start making some sensiblejudgment calls you would hope.

ii wouldn't call it stabalisation. if you take off what they said they were proposing to spend on the new auckland training track,then take off the forbury money,which has its conditions attached then take off another drop of $3 million for next year,what have you got. An industry in financial trouble is what you would have. current leadership seem to be betting on the returns to harness racing from the geo blocking ,especially from sport,and the demise of the greyhound indutry,being enough to keep the ship afloat . they are going to look really ,really dumb if their bet doesn't pay off. hey,just how their bet fares,no one on either side of the argument can be sure.I think its going to be a losing bet,but the level of damage,just serious,not terminal. personally i think the bet they're making is going to turn out its not going to turn out really,really badtbe as bad as some think,just its still going to be bad the point is,why even make the bet in the first place.,why not just operate within your means until you know all the facts.

so i have just had a brief look at the annual report you posted which does provide context for the change from 2024 to 2025. so in 2024 they had $35m ,then a year later(2025) they have dropped $3m to $32m . Then we factor in that hrnz won't be getting that guaranteed mimimun from entain in a year or two,that they are currently receiving, then we factor in that mr steele wants to spend millions on a new auckland training centre,then we factor in the forbury mony is supposed to be tied up for specific use as per the agreement with forbury. I haven't read the report thoroughly,but to me after a qucik look, the signs are there to indicate that what brodie and i and others are saying is the true picture,when you look behind all the hrnz spin. the reason they would have used the 2021 comparison was simply spin.So why did they feel the need to spin it.

that doesn't tell us anything about whether the way hrnz is currently operating is financially sustainable. it has no context. Its like you saying someone has $100,000 more in the back than 4 years ago,so gee, they must be doing a good job. But i then say to you,well they inherited $200,000,3 years ago. Then you would change your tune and say,they are going through their money. of course hrnz have received all the entain money and the $13m from forbury since 2021.. so we need proper context.

love your passion for the sport.

theres the 2 slot races at cambridge. One worth a million. i've given my thoughts previously on where the marketing spending should be directed.Its a complicated multi layered topic. i haven't even discussed the trot race not getting enough support to come up with enough runners to be run. Hrnz have done a u turn as far as that goes. They have done that to save face,had they stuck to what they said they were going to do they would have canned the race.

i said people " currently" have more interest int he non win trot than the slot race.come cambridge racenight,people will watch the slot races. But no one on any racecourse tomorrow will be discussing who's going to win the slot races. and when you say don't run features anymore,thats jjust deflecting again by saying we have said something that we haven't. the debate from our perspective is always about the sustainabilty iof the current spending and the impact it will have on the whole of the industry going forward. We never seem to be discussing the same thing even though we're always having these debates.

thats like saying having a million $ nz cup is more worthy of promoting than a half million $ nz cup. or a million $ slot race is more worthy of marketing than a half million $ slot race. thats the exact type of thinking that comes out of HRNZ. In fact i once had a bloke tell me how he had spoken to mr steele and mr steele said exactly that. If mr steele is right and all those high end races and marketing of high end races is the way to go,then where's the indicators its working.There aren't any because it doesn't work. This isn't the australian galloping industry,this is the nz harness industry we are discussing.

I don't get what that has to do with all the threads that are on this site regarding whether hrnz should be investing so heavily on a slot race. also.are you serious when you say you think a 7 horse ,one off slot trot race dominated by a $1.30 favorite is somehow going to capture the publics or the betting publics imagination.Maybe you do think that.Personally i think your dreaming if you do.

thats like saying if you think your wife should not be spending $500 on a dress because you can't afford to spend that much,your saying the argument is about the quality of the dress,not whether she can afford the dress.

again,your not willing to debate whether the stakelevels for all harness racing will be sustainable in the future. So you go to saying we're all anti this and anti that. Your deliberately deflecting . You do that to avoid debating the merits of whether hrnz is operating in a way that will see sustainable stake levels going forward. You know thats what we are always saying,but you never address it and instead label our posts as anti racing,anti high achievers,anti auckland,anti hrnz,etc.

your confusing debate over where hrnz spend all their money with interest in a slot race. so its not accurate what you say. if you read this site,you would see no one ever shows any interest in the slot races except gammalite. this site is made up of perople who's interest in harness racing is gambling and grass roots racing. i'm sure if you asked the average person who follows harness racing,you would realsie they currently have more interest in the non win trot race at reeftion tomorrow than any slot race.

you've made the same comments previously gamma. i've pointed out before that you don't seem to understand where the money is coming from. for example,if i ibought your car and gave you $10000,then you went and spent the $10,000,your not going to get any more money from me,nor are you going to let me say what you should have spent the $10,000 on. in other words its your responsibilty for spending the $10,000 wisely. If you don't it won't effect me one bit.Nor will anyone feel sorry for you, if you've spend it all at once and have nothing left when its time to pay your bills next year.You can only sell your car once.

so the headline currently on the hrnz website is confidence returns,largest breeding increase in 16 years. hey,i'm not saying its not a good thing numbers are slightly up,but what is obvious is HRNZ are overplaying how significant the progress is. They could have run a headline that said breeding numbers 2nd lowest in history and that would have been just as true. Peden and steele talk about stabalisation of breeding numbers being so important and i get that,but its also very obvious that there had to be a point where numbers hit rock bottom. But anyone who thinks the numbers are good,as indicated by the headline,must be kidding themselves. all that story on hrnz is,is positive spin. i'm not saying i don't get why they have run that story,its just they have again way oversold it. lets remember HRNZ are throwing money around like theres no tomorrow and that includes substanial money being used to incentivise breeding. personally i just don't get why they can't see big holes in how they are dealing with the industry,including breeding incentives. Hrnz should be focusing on creating an environment where breeders have the confidence to continue breeding without the need for hrnz subsidising. And what happens if and when they can no longer keep stake levels at their current level because they have spent all the money trying to give an impression things are better than they really are. And i note they said the sires $5000 or under was the main reason the breeding number rose. Up by 231 on the previous year. But of course that also meant the sires over $5000 were down by 132. now that harness 5000 does seem to have worked for hrnz. I have no idea why anyone with much sense would breed to a harness 5000 on the basis of that it will be eligible for a one off race once a year worth $60,000. But people seem to think like that. My guess is yes there may be that one race they could aim to start in 4 years time but while they realistically have a very small chance of starting in may still be the same,every other race they are running in throughout the year could and probably will be less than what the current stakes are because hrnz is overspending to create that false impression. . As i said one other time,seeing more breed because of the harness 5000 is like watching the people silly enough to breed to nz stallions because hrnz said they would be running for bonuses in years to come,which of course they cancelled beofre anyone got that chance who had bred. But hey,hrnz seem to have sold people on that,so that was a win for hrnz.

and you can guarantee the race will be a total bore as well. The $1.30 favorite will lead,go slow,no one will attack, probably the likes of gus will move around and sit parked but apply no pressure,then it will sprint home a 54 last half and the commentator and media will rave on and on about what a great performance and how wonderful it was.

i think you've answered your own question there brodie. I'm not sure how they went tonight as wasn't watching it much. I did hear a white comment after the last race that it had been a great night,but that his tips not so.He normally says that after each thursday night at cambridge.

i've tuned in to watch 3 races tonight at cambrdige. race 3,the favorite broke about 40m before the start and hindered the 2 horses who started behind it,but no false start and not even an inquiry to late scaratch the two checked.Thats north island oversight for you.Nothing knew about that. then i watched race 5.Son of patrick started a $2.10 favorite and just sat last on a ridiculously slow pace and given its very one paced and a grinding type,,it apeared it wasn't trying. Dion't know whether it was,but it certainly didn't look like it... Then the 3rd race i watched ,race 6. A white tells the boys on out the gate that they should be putting half their pool on leo lincoln to win.White thought it was a certainty. the out the gate crew showed restraint and didn't blow half their pool,just $1500 on it win. How A white could ever tip anything n delany drives is a mystery.Yet he said it was a good thing.As i've pointed out before,you always put a line through anything n delany drives.Delany does have an unccanny ability,but its to stop anything he drives. And well beaten it was.i'm jiust telling it as it is.

i think how each racing code have spent the entain money will decide whether its a dead cat bounce. as to the spreads the clubs put on back in the say. i remember my parents racing a horse or two back in the early 1970's. they would always get a couple of tickets each and then take a friend with them to a room where free afternoon tea was provided for owners.From memory they were allocated 2 or 3 cakes as well as a cup of tea. They still owned one that was in training or racing during the late 80's and 90's,i'm pretty sure the owners got no free afternoon tea by then,but i do recall my parents often commenting on how the local clubs would put on free drinks and food for friends of club members,who only went for the free food and booze and never showed any interest in anything racing. I remember one particular fella who was never a club member and had no interest at all in racing, but would always roll out drunk near the end of the local raceday. funny thing is,my wife and i raced harness horses for many years and the the only club to ever provide an afternoon tea type thing was forbury. Never once did we get an invite from any club,apart from the forbury club for food..if we won our local club would always invite us in for a drink and addington and forbury as well,but no one else did and we have won a race or two at most of the south island tracks.